hmsdreadnought

I was imprecise in my language. Complex and numerous physical 3d models like add on airports will bring a system to its knees. Clouds tend to be OK with a robust graphics card.

Probably already stated here - but I'm OCing my rig to just around 5 and I'm still getting low frames at complex airports with a realistic plane like the PMDG 737. Complex weather and ground textures will bring even the most powerful rigs to their knees...

The Navy Outlying Field on Whidbey Island has one of these - I'm thinking they may have moved it to whatever end of the runway was being used for carrier landing practice...

Perhaps the 717 - they've got all that coding from the MD11... Colin Ware Seattle

If you don't want to drive the CS birds - then the coolsky/mcphat DC9 classic is an excellent add on. Can't recommend it enough. Lot's to do with the old school VOR to VOR navigation.

I would urge you to start with the 737. It is a great plane for flight simming because it is used for short hops in the real world. It flies very well, has a truly awesome heads up display (worth the price of admission just for that!) and will prepare you for any other modern Boeing down the road. I also am still not sold on the 777's fly by wire handling. It is still difficult to manage pitch and trim on the climb out - much more so than the 777 simulator I flew at the United Training Center in Denver about 10 years ago. The 737 however handles very nicely - though I find it harder to land well on a consistent basis when I'm not using the heads up display. With the heads up display, landing is just plane fun! And you should be overclocking your CPU.... So that would be my recommendation. Colin Seattle

I actually think the 707 cockpit is better - but I've been having a lot of fun with the recently updated three holer...the flight director finally works!

Neither was the MD11 popular with airlines...Delta just invested heavily in Critter's 717s... I fully agree with the sentiment. The only real difference between flying the 777 and the 737 is the quirky fly-by-wire performance in FSX. Very similar systems, flows and procedures. These planes are all designed to be flown 95% on AP - so what is there for us to do? Go watch TV... Glad the DC6 is coming along. That you will have to fly and navigate - and that challenge will be fun. The same fun I have flying the coolsky dc9. Colin Ware Seattle I'm pretty sure the engine modelling is pretty complex for those powerful rotaries...

Concur

Much more excited for the DC-6. How different is flying this plane really than the T7? Flows are similar. Procedures are similar. Displays are similar. Would be much more into this if the plane was a -200 or -300 version... Colin Ware Seattle

Very happy about this. My favorite radial bird

Horizon is about 90% Q400s on their routes throughout the Pacific Northwest....planes are now all in Alaska colors plus their state university birds...

The Coolsky MD80 and the Leonardo both have good and bad points. The Coolsky looks better, but is an older product with flat VC panels - no 3d gauges. The Leonardo has better systems fidelity, but the VC is terrible. If you are going to fly multi monitor, with a 2d panel on the lower, outside on the upper, I'd go with the Leonardo...otherwise, I can't recommend either. The Coolsky DC9 Classic is awesome...

Just spend the money on the Coolsky. You will get hours of enjoyment learning how to fly and navigate it properly. It is one of my absolute favorite add on aircraft. Colin

I'm hoping the version with the heads up display so I can fly inot PNW airports with little to no visibility in my Horizon/Alaska livery...